smoking pot is still smoking, it is bad for your health. Intentionally doingsomething abd for your health for enjoyment would constitue a willing desecration of the temple of our body, and be a sin against god. I explained this for smoking cigarettes and I guess I though people would make the connection. Also, pot has a cumulative affect in your brain, where it is stored until you die.

I want to say we're making progress, but you still haven't backed up or even mentioned your previous argument involving these actions being violations of the First Commandment, which is the part I've been asking about.

Nothing you have said here involves any coonection to that previous assertation; it's actually a completely different justification of the ungodliness of certain substances.

sooooooooooo I want to know if this is on purpose, or if I should expect an answer, or what.

smoking pot is still smoking, it is bad for your health. Intentionally doingsomething abd for your health for enjoyment would constitue a willing desecration of the temple of our body, and be a sin against god. I explained this for smoking cigarettes and I guess I though people would make the connection. Also, pot has a cumulative affect in your brain, where it is stored until you die.

I'll give you the point of inhaling smoke being harmful, but your claim about the long-term effects of cannabis are unsubstantiated. I want to see some sources on that one.

there's also some new evidence that marijuana may prevent alzheimer's disease, and of course it has been used to alleviate glaucoma symptoms, and reduce nausea in people undergoing chemotherapy. of course, undergoing chemotherapy is making a deliberate choice to do something that will harm your body, so i guess you aren't supposed to do that anyway._________________aka: neverscared!

there's also some new evidence that marijuana may prevent alzheimer's disease, and of course it has been used to alleviate glaucoma symptoms, and reduce nausea in people undergoing chemotherapy. of course, undergoing chemotherapy is making a deliberate choice to do something that will harm your body, so i guess you aren't supposed to do that anyway.

fine, i'll back off marijauna being bad for you in a health way. Other than the smoking part. Hell, i'll move pot to the same level as alcohol, with the understanding that I would never recommend it, and if asked I would say it is a bad thing to get into becuase of where it can lead.

On a similar note: I have actually considered whether I would support legalization of marijuana, and there are quite a few benefits: alternate tax income (as opposed to people's lifeblood, like it is now...), discouragement of the crime associated with it's use, etc. But my worry is that legalizing a gateway drug would have serious affects on the number of users of harder drugs, especially when they are so easy to get._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: but then they try meth and their head falls off

That puts you about where I am. I'm worried, based on sociological study, that criminalization of pot stretches the means of social control against controlled substances and perversely hurts society's attempt to dissuade against gateway druggin'

It could likely be that criminalization of pot has created a negative effect in the war on drugs. One common effect that drug users talk about is how the sensationalization of the negative effects of marijuana would undermine faith in government messages against drugs.

They'd be stuffed full of anti-marijuana scare stories in middle school. Then, students would try marijuana anyway and end up with a line of thought that went 'hey, they filled us with doom-and-gloom stories about pot and none of it was true, so why should I trust them when they give us doom-and-gloom stories about crystal meth?'

personally, i think the tobacco control people have the right idea (and that is _totally_ not biased by my being in tobacco control). we work on reducing the demand for tobacco, by changing norms about using it. now, true, tobacco has some genuine health consequences, which makes it easier to build an unambiguous message). in the meantime, we can tax it to raise revenue, (theoretically) control the purity, and we aren't costing ourselves a fortune putting people in prison for having a pack, and paying for a huge enforcement effort that doesn't work anyway.

ok, i may have gotten off the subject.

(i was replying to marik, since someone else has probably already jumped in and i am too lazy to go back and quote)